The Network of African Science Academies (NASAC) was established on 13th December 2001
in Nairobi, Kenya, under the auspices of the African Academy of Sciences (AAS) and the Inter
Academy Panel (IAP). NASAC is a consortium of merit-based science academies in Africa and
aspires to make the “voice of science” heard by policy and decision makers within Africa
and worldwide. NASAC is dedicated to enhancing the capacity of existing national science
academies and champion the cause for creation of new academies where none exist.
This document is an output from the cooperation between NASAC and the German National
Academy of Sciences Leopoldina. The Leopoldina is the world’s oldest continuously existing
academy for medicine and the natural sciences. It was founded in 1652 and has been located
in Halle since 1878. Its more than 1,400 elected members are outstanding scientists from all
over the world. The Leopoldina was appointed Germany’s National Academy of Sciences in
July 2008. In this function, one of the Leopoldina’s responsibilities is to provide science-based
advice to policymakers and to the public. It represents German scientists in international
academy circles and maintains links with scientific institutions in European and non-European
countries.
The cooperation project between NASAC and the Leopoldina is funded by the German Federal
Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF).
Education and research are a Federal Government policy priority in Germany, based on the
firm belief that they are the foundations on which we will build our future in a changing world,
and that we will only be able to master the challenges of the 21st century through international
cooperation in education, research and science. BMBF therefore cooperates with individual
states and institutions on many interdisciplinary projects.
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology
for Africa’s Economic Development
Recommendations to Policymakers
© 2015 Network of African Science Academies (NASAC)
Design and layout
Dezine Creationz Ltd.
Printers
Paperbrand Conqueror Enterprises
Publishers
Network of African Science Academies (NASAC)
iv
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
Contents
Foreword............................................................................................ vi
Report Team..................................................................................... viii
List of Acronyms.................................................................................. 1
1.
Introduction........................................................................................ 2
2.
Key Messages...................................................................................... 5
3.
The Potential of Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for
Africa’s Development.......................................................................... 7
4.
Governing Modern Biotechnology Development and
Biosafety Regulation in Africa........................................................... 11
5.
Africa in the Global Modern Agricultural Biotechnology
Enterprise.......................................................................................... 16
6.
Capacity for Biotechnology Research, Product Development
and Deployment................................................................................ 19
7.
Public awareness, Participation and Communication.......................22
8.
Conclusions and Way Forward.......................................................... 24
9.
References......................................................................................... 25
Recommendations to Policymakers
v
Foreword
For the past two decades, modern biotechnology, particularly the use of genetically
modified (GM) organisms, has been at the centre of global conversations on public policy.
Agriculture remains the main user of modern biotechnology, applied mainly to mitigate
various production constraints and enhance production, quality and nutritional value through
commercial production of genetically modified crops. The development of GM farm animals
or environmentally important animals is still at its nascent stages. Global conversations have
therefore been centred on commercial production of GM crops in agricultural systems within
sustainably balanced bio-diverse ecosystems.
The potential for GM organisms to make a significant contribution in the development of
better health care and enhanced food security through sustainable agricultural practices was
recognised in Agenda 21 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. Africa hosted the subsequent World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa 2002, where the full implementation of
Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments
to the Rio principles, was strongly reaffirmed. Despite all these involvements, Africa’s progress
towards tapping on the potential of GM technology and reap real benefits accruing from its
use in the continent’s economic mainstay is not happening fast enough.
The urgency for African governments to facilitate the application of modern agricultural
biotechnology through the adoption of favorable biotechnology development policies and
biosafety regulatory frameworks cannot be overemphasised. This will pave the way for the
development and application of appropriate agricultural biotechnologies, particularly genetic
modification of crop plants. The deployment of these genetic modification technologies in
African agriculture is especially relevant now, in addressing the challenges of climate change,
the increasing population growth that has resulted in an increased demand for food, the
reducing area of arable land and biotic and abiotic constraints to agricultural productivity
while ensuring a healthy balance of bio-diverse ecosystems.
Against this backdrop, the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), in collaboration with
the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), the German National Academy
of Sciences (Leopoldina), the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) and
the African Union Commission (AUC), jointly organised an expert workshop on Agricultural
Biotechnology with funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 25–26th February 2014. Following this conference, NASAC
continued the collaboration with Leopoldina to facilitate the development of an agricultural
biotechnology policymakers’ booklet to present African governments and business leaders
with a source of scientific evidence to help them in policy and decision making processes.
This document, which is an outcome of the NASAC and Leopoldina collaboration, focuses on
why adoption of Agric-Biotech is important to Africa. Through key messages, the document
elaborates on how food security, environmental health, economic development and the
general human wellbeing can be achieved and sustained through targeted policy actions
that relate to: Governance of biotech development and biosafety; the place of Africa in the
global Agric-biotech enterprise; Capacity Building for Biotechnology Research and Product
Development; Addressing Key Issues of Concern; Public Awareness and Communication.
These issues had earlier been discussed in great detail during the first expert group meeting
vi
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
on Biotechnology for Africa’s Sustainable Development by the United Nations Economic
Commission for Africa (UNECA) in 2002. The meeting covered the important fields of food
security, energy, industry, health and the environment and recommended the creation of an
ECA Biotech group to lead the development of biotechnology capacity building in Africa. This
recommendation is yet to be actualised more than a decade later.
African Academies of Science, through their network (NASAC) and linkages with global
academies, present a rich pool of expertise as a source of evidence based advice to policy
formulation and decision making. It is hoped that African governments and private sector
champions will be stimulated to enhance their interaction with science academies to harness
local biotechnology human capacities for evidence based contribution to national policy and
decision making processes.
African governments, under the auspices of the African Union have initiated key Pan African
programmes and initiatives namely, the New Partnership for Africa´s Development (NEPAD),
the High-level African Panel on Biotechnology and the African Biosafety Network of Expertise
(ABNE) aimed at guiding the continent in harnessing the potential of biotechnology for
human development, global competitiveness and ecological management. These government
driven initiatives have been complemented by the Global Environment Facility of the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP-GEF) and other private and civil society supported
programmes.
So far, the initiatives have made significant contribution in guiding the continent’s leadership
towards a focus on investment in the development of facilitative biotechnology policies and
biosafety regulatory frameworks that will firmly entrench Africa into the global biotechnology
enterprise. In this regard, African governments, the private sector, development partners and
civil society players have invested in science and technology in general and biotechnology
in particular through partnerships designed for capacity building and product development.
The next logical step is for Africa to position herself to harness the benefits of agricultural
biotechnology within the context of assuring safety to human health and sustainable
conservation of biodiversity.
This policy advisory has drawn from the wealth of African expertise under the auspices of the
Network of African Science Academies (NASAC). I call upon African government and business
leaders to draw from this rich resource in their endeavour to develop and exploit Africa’s
nascent modern biotechnology enterprise.
Prof. Bousmina Mosto Mostapha
Board Chair, NASAC
Recommendations to Policymakers
vii
Report Team
Authors
Roy B. Mugiira
Douglas W. Miano
Prof. Shireen Assem
Florence Wambugu
Andrew Kiggundu
Ibrahim K. Atokple
James Opiyo Ochanda
Idah Sithole-Niang
Torbjörn Fagerström
Claudia Canales
Masresha Fetene
Teklehaimanot Hailesalassie
Teshome Lemma
Kasirim Nwuke
Drissa Sérémé
Walter Sandow Al Hassan
Peer Reviewers
Asha Dookun Saumtally
Eugenia Barros
Oyebiodun G. Longe
Editors
Roy B. Mugiira and Douglas W. Miano
NASAC Secretariat
Jackie Olang
Philbert Okello
Rahab Gitahi
German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina
Christiane Diehl
Annegret Kuhnigk
Funding and in-kind support
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)
through the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina,
Interacademy Partnership (IAP),
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA),
and the African Union Commission (AUC).
viii
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
List of Acronyms
AATF African Agricultural Technology Foundation
ABNE African Biosafety Network of Expertise
AU African Union
B4FA Biosciences for Farming in Africa
Bt. Cotton Cotton variety Transformed with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
COMESA Common Markets for Eastern and Southern Africa
DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid
EAC East African Community
EASAC European Academies Science Advisory Council
ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GM Genetically Modified/Genetic Modification
GMOs Genetically Modified Organisms
IPR Intellectual Property Rights
ISAAA International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications
LMOs Living Modified Organisms
MAS Marker Assisted Selection
NASAC Network of African Science Academies
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development
PUB Public Understanding of Biotechnology
R&D Research and Development
RABESA Regional Approach to Biotechnology and Biosafety in Eastern and Southern Africa
RFLP Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism
RNA Ribonucleic Acid
SAASTA South African Agency for Science and Technology Advancement
SNP Single Nucleotide Polymorphism
ST&I Science Technology and Innovation
WEMA Water Efficient Maize for Africa
WFP World Food Programme
WHO World Health Organization
Recommendations to Policymakers
1
1
Introduction
Viewed as an additional tool in the farmer’s tool
box, modern agricultural biotechnology (Text
box 1) presents a real opportunity for increased
agricultural productivity, mitigation of biotic and
abiotic stresses that constrain production and
enhancing/unleashing the full nutritional value of
food crops through bio-fortification and silencing
of genes responsible for the synthesis of antinutritional compounds. In recognition of this
opportunity, African political, business and civil
society leadership have invested in deliberate
efforts to harness science and technology
generally and biotechnology in agriculture
specifically through dedicated programmes that
address specific needs in the application of the
technology including stewardship to ensure its
proper deployment.
Text box 1
Meaning and context of
agricultural biotechnology
Biotechnology has broadly been defined as
any technique that uses living organisms or
substances from those organisms, to make or
modify a product, to improve plants, animals
or microorganisms for specific uses (Bailey
et al., 2014). The field of biotechnology has
different branches including;
• Microbial
biotechnology
which
entails use of microorganisms for the
production of for example, enzymes,
antibiotics and bioremediation (the
use of microorganisms to clean
environment);
• Plant biotechnology which includes
plant tissue culture, development of
genetic markers to fast track selection of
natural traits in plant breeding, genetic
Under the auspices of the African Union (AU) for
example, tremendous progress has been achieved
in raising the profile of science and technology
through the Consolidated Plan of Action (CPA),
the Lagos Plan of Action, promotion of higher education through the Pan-African University
initiative and investment in agriculture through the Maputo Declaration. In effect, African
governments and business leaders now view science, technology and innovation as critical
to the continent’s socio-economic development. What has been lacking is the translation
of these efforts, declarations and expressions into actions and outcomes through dedicated
implementation programmes.
In view of its enormous potential to contribute to Africa’s food security, environmental
health, economic development and the general human wellbeing (Sasson, 2008), modern
biotechnology has received special attention of African leaders. However, dissenting voices
continue to be heard across Africa expressing skeptisms of the benefit of biotechnology to the
continent’s socio-economic wellbeing. A number of such voices intimate that biotechnology
has no real benefits to offer the continent and instead it presents negative socio-economic
impacts.
One aspect of modern biotechnology involves the selection, isolation and transfer of genes
from one organism into another through a procedure known as genetic engineering or
genetic modification with a wide range of application as a tool in agriculture, environmental
management, the study of gene function, health and industrial processing. To leverage on the
benefits of modern biotechnology, the African Union initiated the establishment of three key
pan African programmes: the New Partnership for Africa´s Development (NEPAD); the Highlevel African Panel on Biotechnology; and the African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE),
2
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
engineering of plants for crop improvement such as
herbicide resistance, insect and disease resistance,
and molecular breeding;
• Animal biotechnology such as embryo transfer,
transgenic animals, animal propagation (artificial
insemination and cloning);
• Medical biotechnology which involves disease
diagnostics, production of vaccines and drugs, and
tissue engineering; and
• Forensics which involves crime control, paternity
and kinship tests.
Agricultural biotechnology techniques commonly used
in crop production include:
• Plant tissue culture, through which plant cells or
parts are grown in laboratory conditions to generate
new plants. This offers a number of opportunities
including reduced contamination of plants, rapid
propagation, and cloning of disease free planting
material.
• Marker assisted selection (MAS), in which breeders
use DNA ‘markers’ to identify genes associated
with certain traits, allowing progeny to be screened
for desired genes. This can reduce breeding
times significantly, as the conventional process of
screening for traits (as opposed to genetic markers)
takes longer.
• ‘Omics’ Sciences (Genomics, Proteomics, and
Metabolomics). These are technologies through
which i) the sequences in the entire genome of a
particular organism are discovered and sequenced
(Genomics); ii) the structure and function of
proteins is studied (Proteomics), iii) the profile of
metabolic compounds at a specified time under
specific environmental conditions is determined
(metabolomics). Genomics provides an overview
of the complete set of genetic instructions provided
by the DNA, while transcriptomics looks into gene
expression patterns. Proteomics studies expressed
proteins and their interactions, while metabolomics
is the final step in understanding an organism’s
entire metabolism.
• Genetic modification (GM) is the term given to
the technology through which a gene from one
organism is transferred to another. The inserted
gene may be from the same species (cisgenics) or
from another species (transgenics). It includes gene
silencing and artificial mutations.
While all other fields have basically been accepted by the
majority of people, the products of genetically modified
(GM) organisms, in some cases also called living
modified organisms (LMOs), especially the genetically
modified crops continues to draw mixed reactions
mainly in Europe and Africa. This area of biotechnology
(genetic modification) in agriculture therefore forms the
core focus of this policymakers booklet.
Text box 2
Efforts by African governments to enhance effective
application of modern biotechnology in the continent
In 2003, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development
(NEPAD) formed a High-level African Panel on
Biotechnology (APB) with a mandate to advise Africa
on the scientific, policy and legal issues pertaining to
the development, commercialisation and application
of modern biotechnology. The panel was to provide
the African Union (AU) and NEPAD with independent
and strategic advice on developments in modern
biotechnology and its implications for agriculture, health
and the environment, focusing on intra-regional and
international issues of regulating the development and
application of genetic modification and its products.
The panel was tasked to consider a number of factors
that affect use of biotechnology in Africa including
1. Developments in modern biotechnology outlining
the implications that may be associated with
adoption and non-adoption of such technologies
for regional economic and trade integration;
2. Priority areas that offer high potential for the regional
research and development (R&D), including aspects
of risk assessment and management;
3. Aspects of the development and regulation of
modern biotechnology into a regional/continental
regulatory regime for shared R&D and technology
management;
4. Scientific capacity to ensure the safe application and
use of products derived from modern biotechnology
and the regulation and management aspects;
5. Ways of improving cooperation with other regions to
address trade, R&D and regulatory issues pertaining
to modern biotechnology.
The Panel highlighted the importance of agricultural
biotechnology in Africa and developed recommendations
on the nature of regional institutional arrangements that
are required to promote and sustain common regulatory
approaches on the application and proposed a strategy
Recommendations to Policymakers
3
continued from previous page
and policy on the use of modern biotechnology
(Juma and Serageldin, 2007). The Panel
recommended that:
i. The cooperation between individual
countries in central, eastern, western,
northern and southern Africa should be
enhanced to work together at the regional
level to scale up the development of
biotechnology;
ii. Priority areas in biotechnology that are of
relevance to Africa’s development be defined;
iii. Critical capabilities needed for the development
and safe use of biotechnology be identified;
iv. Appropriate regulatory measures that can
advance research, commercialisation, trade and
consumer protection be established;
v. Strategic options for creating and building
regional biotechnology innovation communities
and local innovation areas in Africa be set up.
aimed at harnessing the potential of biotechnology for the continent’s human development,
global competitiveness and ecological management (Juma and Serageldin, 2007; Text box 2).
Agriculture is one of the major users of modern biotechnology and worldwide adoption of the
technology in commercial planting of genetically modified (GM) crops continues to be rapid
(James, 2013). However, despite the tremendous out-puts of the pan African programmes in
form of institutional capacity building for research, training and product development as well
as practical recommendations by expert groups, the adoption of modern biotechnology in
Africa remains low resulting in a minimal participation of Africa in the global biotechnology
enterprise. For example, out of the global 181.5 million hectares of GM crops only 3.5 million
hectares, representing about 2% were planted in just 3 African countries (South Africa, Burkina
Faso and Sudan) in 2014 (James, 2014). Egypt has since 2012 suspended the cultivation of GM
maize after health concerns were raised in response to the controversial publication by Seralini
et al. (2012). Kenya also responded to the publication in the same fashion as Egypt by banning
importation of GM foods. This underscores the need to enhance Africa’s research capacity and
facilitate homegrown interrogation of various claims leveled against biotechnology.
To address the low level of Agric-Biotech adoption in Africa, this policy advisory focuses on
addressing limiting factors within five thematic areas, namely: The Potential of Agricultural
Biotechnology for Africa’s Development; Governance of Biotechnology Development and
Biosafety Regulation; Africa in the Global Agricultural Biotechnology Enterprise; Capacity
for Biotechnology Research, Product Development and Deployment; Public Awareness,
Participation and Communication. This policy makers’ booklet presents a brief background
on each of these constraints and elaborates on how they can be overcome through targeted
policy actions.
The current Africa’s development narrative is characterised by a rising population with its
commensurate demand for more food; deficiencies of vital dietary nutrients in the continent’s
population; the continent’s vulnerability to the negative impacts of climate change such as
droughts; the reducing area of arable land due to rapid urbanisation; the declining soil fertility
in the continent’s hither-to bread baskets; and the tropical biotic constraints to agricultural
productivity. In view of this narrative, the adoption of agricultural biotechnology to mitigate
against these impediments to human wellbeing and development cannot wait any longer. It
is hoped that the policy advisory presented in this booklet will excite African governments
and business leaders to search for science evidence from the boundless source within science
academies and apply it to inform policy and decision making processes.
4
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
Key Messages
2
Key Message 1: The Potential of Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa‘s
Development
Modern agricultural biotechnology has a great potential of contributing real socio-economic
benefits to the African continent given her demonstrably great need for enhanced agricultural
productivity. Africa is uniquely exposed to food and nutrition insecurity, impacts of climate
change, declining soil fertility and general decline in agricultural productivity owing to
numerous biotic and abiotic constraints, all of which can be addressed through the application
of modern biotechnology as an additional tool in the agricultural production systems. For
maximum impact, the technology must be applied alongside other best agronomic practices
and technology stewardship.
African governments are encouraged to invest part of their commitments of allocating 10%
of the national budget to Agriculture (Maputo Declaration, 2003) and 1% of their GDP to
Science and Technology (April 1980, Lagos Plan of Action) to Agricultural biotechnology to
address these long standing developmental challenges. This can be achieved through effective
partnerships with private sector and civil society actors who are working towards delivering
Agricultural Biotechnology benefits to the people of Africa.
Key Message 2: Governing Modern Biotechnology Development and Biosafety
Regulation in Africa
The majority of African countries are parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and a
number have ratified its Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress. Taking cue from
the Protocol, the African Model Law and drawing from the European approach to modern
biotechnology, the governance of modern biotechnology in Africa is characterised by an
extreme precautionary approach. This has become a major hindrance to the development
and application of modern biotechnology in the continent.
African governments are encouraged to undertake comprehensive reviews of their
Biotechnology policy and regulatory frameworks to emphasise (on) the benefits of the
technology and base their decision making on scientific evidence. Further, African governments
are encouraged to play a more proactive and facilitative role in regional initiatives to harmonise
biotechnology policies and biosafety regulations and thus create an enabling environment for
a flourishing biotechnology enterprise in Africa driven by the specific needs of the continent.
Key Message 3: Africa in the Global Modern Agricultural Biotechnology
Enterprise
The global biotechnology enterprise has been expanding exponentially in the last two
decades with Africa remaining hesitant to delve into the commercial production of GM crops
despite having conducted long term confined field trials on several GM crops and also having
developed biotechnology policies and biosafety regulatory frameworks. Africa is endowed
with a sizable youthful and well educated population that can be harnessed to support the
deployment of modern biotechnology and its associated management stewardship as well as
become involved in biotechnology research.
Recommendations to Policymakers
5
African governments and regional economic communities are encouraged to create a
conducive environment that will facilitate the development and application of agricultural
biotechnology. Emphasis should be on maximising the socio-economic benefits associated
with modern biotechnology and embrace science based advice to inform decision making.
Key Message 4: Capacity for Biotechnology Research, Product Development
and Deployment
Agricultural biotechnology has a great potential of contributing real socio-economic benefits
to the African continent given her demonstrably great need for enhanced agricultural
productivity. Africa is uniquely exposed to food and nutrition insecurity, revenges of climate
change, declining availability of arable land, rising salinity and declining soil fertility and in
general decline in agricultural productivity due to numerous biotic and abiotic constraints,
all of which can be addressed through the application of modern biotechnology. The low
infrastructure, human and institutional capacities for agricultural biotechnology research,
product development and deployment is a long standing obstacle to Africa’s desire of becoming
a key participant in the global biotechnology enterprise and the knowledge based economy.
African governments are encouraged to enhance their investment in the development and
application of agricultural biotechnology as part of their commitments expressed in the Lagos
Plan of Action and the Maputo Declaration. The governments are also encouraged to pursue
collaborative research programmes within the South-South and North-South framework and
facilitate the effective utilisation of the continent’s expertise in the Diaspora. This can be
achieved through effective partnerships with the private sector, development partners and
civil society actors who are working towards delivering agricultural biotechnology benefits to
the people of Africa.
Key Message 5: Public Awareness, Participation and Communication
Generally, public awareness and participation on matters of modern biotechnology, particularly
the genetic modification of organisms, resulting in the development of Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMO) is very low worldwide. In Africa the technology is perceived to be foreign/
alien, further creating the opportunity for deliberate distortion of facts and non-scientific basis
of risk perception. This has made it difficult for African countries to individually and collectively
discuss, set priorities and exploit economic and other benefits offered by biotechnology.
Awareness of biotechnology and the beneficial impact on agriculture and food security should
be introduced to schools so that children learn the correct facts about biotechnology and
grow up to become adults that accept the technology, see its potential and can influence
governments to become more proactive in the adoption of modern biotechnology.
African governments, as parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, have committed to
the provisions of Article 23 of the Protocol on Public Awareness and Participation. To fulfill this
commitment, African governments are encouraged to partner with the media, civil society
and other relevant stakeholders to enhance domestic capacity for public communication,
education and participation. The governments can use the experiences of resource poor
farmers in African countries that have adopted modern biotechnology as learning points for
public education and awareness programmes.
6
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
The Potential of Agricultural
Biotechnology for Africa’s Development
Background
3
Text box 3:
Agricultural biotechnology has been billed as the single
technology that has witnessed phenomenon growth
in adoption within a very short time. This is testament
to biotechnology’s great potential in delivering real
benefits to humankind. The confirmation of this
testament came in the form of reports of case studies
that have analysed the benefits of GM crop production
in various countries representing a wide agro-geoecological disposition (Text box 3). Besides these direct
benefits derived from tangible products of modern
biotechnology in commercial production systems,
there are many other benefits that are derived from
the application of modern biotechnology as a tool for
various processes such as plant breeding and study of
gene function.
In this ever expanding agricultural biotechnology
enterprise, Africa’s approach has remained largely
hesitant in the unfolding events. This is in spite of the
fact that the African continent is the most exposed
to food and nutrition insecurity, impacts of climate
change, declining availability of arable land, rising
salinity and declining soil fertility and in general decline
in agricultural productivity owing to
numerous biotic and abiotic constraints
(Plate 1 & 2). It is no wonder therefore,
that Africa remains a net recipient of
emergency food aid. However, there
is growing focus on crops that are
relevant to Africa’s diversified diets
including orphan crops that are being
Overview on economic and
social impacts of GM crops
in Africa and the rest of the
world
Experience over the past two decades of
cultivation of GM crops has proven that
the technology presents real economic,
social and environmental benefits to farmers
(Qaim, 2009; Qaim and Kouser, 2013;
Traore et al., 2014; Morris and Thomson,
2014). Three main types of GM crops
have been extensively cultivated in different
countries; Herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybean,
Insect-resistant (Bt) and HT maize, and
Insect-resistant (Bt) cotton. Since 1996,
the GM crops have been approved and
commercially used in several countries.
Burkina Faso, Sudan and South Africa
are the three countries that are
currently
commercially
producing GM
Plate 1 (Adopted from Ogwok et al., 2012). Cassava
brown streak disease (CBSD) symptoms on storage
roots. (A) Uprooted storage roots from a transgenic
plant beside a non-transgenic plant. (B) Storage
roots from plants of transgenic plant showing minimal
damage caused by CBSD. (C) Storage roots of nontransgenic plants showing severe damage caused
by CBSD. Cassava is an important food crop in
East Africa and its production is being threatened by
CBSD. So far, conventional breeding has not come
up with resistant varieties and genetic engineering is
a possible option to solving the problem.
Recommendations to Policymakers
7
crops in Africa. Taking examples from Burkina Faso and South Africa, the benefits of GM crops to farmers are outlined
below.
Bt cotton production in Burkina Faso
The history of commercialisation of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso is documented by Traore et al. (2014). The country’s
experience with Bt cotton is an excellent example of how biosafety procedures and processes should be used to
facilitate the introduction of a modern biotechnology product into an African market. Bt cotton was first commercialised
in Burkina Faso in 2009 after 6 years of controlled field testing for efficacy, safety, and commercial viability. In the first
year of commercial production, 129,000 ha of land were put under commercial production of Bt cotton, making it the
largest introduction of modern biotechnology on the continent. The area doubled to 256,000 ha in 2010. Since then,
the area under Bt cotton production has been on a gradual increase (Table 1). Over 50% of cotton production is now
under Bt cotton.
Table 1. Increase in the area under Bt. cotton in
Burkina Faso since 2009 (Adopted from Traore et al., 2014)
Year
Total area under cotton
production (Hectares)
Area under Bt cotton
(Hectares)
Percent are under
Bt cotton
2009
420,000
129,000
31
2010
386,000
256,000
66
2011
429,000
251,000
59
2015
530,000
300,000
57
The process of commercialising Bt cotton was made possible by political will from authorities, the determination of
stakeholders such as scientists, cotton producers and companies dealing with the product.
Burkina Faso farmers have greatly benefited from the use of Bt cotton. Reduced use of toxic insecticides resulted
in lower exposure and therefore reduced incidence of farmer pesticide poisoning. Financial gains per hectare were
also achieved due to reduced purchase of chemicals. Increase in farm incomes eventually resulted in reduction of food
insecurity among cotton producers.
GM crops production in South Africa
Bt cotton and maize have been in commercial production in South Africa since 1997. Since then, the production of
GM crops in South Africa has steadily increased. James (2012) noted that 1.64 million ha of land was under white
maize for human consumption, 80.5 % was GM. Yellow maize used for animal fodder and chicken feed covered 1.19
developed by African researchers in African institutions. The African Plant Breeding Academy, a
programme of the African Orphan Crops Consortium graduated the first class of plant breeders
in Nairobi, Kenya on 11th December 2014. These graduates will greatly contribute to the biofortified sorghum and insect resistant cowpea development programmes. Additionally, animal
GM products such as vaccines and diagnostic kits are in the development pipeline.
African governments made commitments to allocate 10% of their budgets (Maputo Declaration,
2003) and 1% of their GDP (Lagos Plan of Action, 1980) to Agriculture and Science and
Technology respectively, within 5 years for the Maputo declaration and 10 years for the Lagos
Plan of Action. Some progress has been made to this end and much can be achieved through
effective partnerships with the private sector and civil society actors who are working on the
agricultural biotechnology enterprise. In response to the Plan, the AU NEPAD, under its African
Biosciences Initiative, has established the following sub-regional bodies for biotechnology:
(1)SANBio (South Africa);
(2)BecA (East and Central Africa);
(3)WABNet (West Africa); and
(4)NABNet (North Africa).
8
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
million ha of land, 93% of which was GM. Herbicide tolerance soyabeans were planted in 450,000 ha of land,
out of which 93% were GM. By 2012, nine GM maize events, six GM cotton events and one soyabean GM
event had been approved for general release (Morris and Thomson, 2014). To-date, 87% of maize, 92% of
soyabeans, and 100% of cotton produced in South Africa is GM. GM food is widely consumed in South Africa
and no substantiated negative effects have been reported.
Safe production and use of GM crops in other parts of the world
Examples of safe use of GM crops are replicated in all the main GM commodities (HT soybean, Bt and HT
maize, and Bt cotton) in different parts of the world such as USA, Brazil, China, India, Argentina, Paraguay,
Pakistan, Canada, Australia, Uruguay, Philippines, Burkina Faso, and Bolivia (James, 2012). To-date, there is
no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any
other technology used in plant breeding. There have been arguments of whether the introduction of Bt cotton
has resulted in increased suicide rates in smallholder farmers in India. However, studies have shown that the
suicide cases are in no way related to the adoption of Bt cotton as shown in Figure 1 below (Qaim, 2014).
It is however important to note that benefits from the technology can best be made on a case-by-case
basis depending on the technology and the situation in which it is being employed. While Bt crops are suitable
for the small scale farm sector, herbicide
tolerance may be useful in situations of
large scale production, labor scarcity or
where certain weeds are very difficult to
control. Smallholder farmers in Africa
often weed manually. Africa should wholly
embrace the technology to solve African
challenges such as drought, crop pests
and diseases, and poor nutrition. Currently,
the available crop-trait combinations are
still limited. However, the future of GM
technology is bright, and many more
benefits will be achieved when more croptrait combinations are commercialised,
Figure 1. Adoption of Bt cotton by farmers in India and farmer
especially when traits related to challenges
suicides before and after adoption (Qaim, 2014).
facing African farmers are included.
To augment these, the Nigerian government has recently (2014) established a centre of
excellence in biotechnology at the University of Nigeria in Nsukka with the support of the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). This centre is yet
to start activities.
To support the further development of the nascent biotechnology enterprise in the continent,
African governments will need to partner with private sector and civil society actors who are
working towards delivering agricultural biotechnology benefits to the people of Africa. Key
examples of such potential partners include the African Agricultural Technology Foundation
(AATF) which was established to negotiate royalty free agricultural technology (including
biotechnology) and the Golden Rice project, which is working towards delivering the Vitamin
A bio-fortified rice to Africa. To leverage on this, Africa needs to take strategic measures aimed
at promoting the application of agricultural biotechnology within regional economic blocks
and trade integration initiatives such as the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
(COMESA), the Economic Commission of West African States (ECOWAS), the Southern Africa
Development Community (SADC) and the East African Community (EAC).
Recommendations to Policymakers
9
Key Message
Modern agricultural biotechnology has great potential to contribute real socio-economic
benefits to the African continent given her demonstrably great need for enhanced agricultural
productivity. Africa is uniquely exposed to food and nutrition insecurity, impacts of climate
change, declining availability of arable land, rising salinity and declining soil fertility and in
general decline in agricultural productivity due to numerous biotic and abiotic constraints, all
of which can be addressed through the application of modern biotechnology as an additional
tool in the agricultural production systems. For maximum impact, the technology must be
applied alongside other best agronomic practices and technology stewards.
African governments are encouraged to invest part of their commitments of allocating 10%
of the national budget to agriculture (Maputo Declaration, 2003) and 1% of their GDP to
Science and Technology (April 1980, Lagos Plan of Action) to agricultural biotechnology to
address these long standing developmental challenges. This can be achieved through effective
partnerships with private sector and civil society actors who are working towards delivering
agricultural biotechnology benefits to the people of Africa.
Plate 2. Non-transgenic papaya (left) showing severe symptoms of papaya ringspot virus infection and transgenic
virus-resistant papaya (right) in the field (Ferreira, 1998). Transgenic papaya saved the papaya industry from complete
destruction by the virus in Hawaii.
10
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
Governing Biotechnology Development
and Biosafety Regulation in Africa
4
Background
Modern biotechnology includes the isolation, selection and transfer of genes from one
organism into another through a procedure known as genetic modification (also known as
genetic engineering or transformation), resulting in genetically modified organisms (GMOs:
also Living Modified Organisms, LMOs). The governance of modern biotechnology stems from
a protocol that was globally negotiated and adopted in Cartagena, Colombia on 29th January,
2000, and entered into force on 11th September, 2003. The core objective of the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is to ensure the safe
handling, transport and use of LMOs resulting from modern biotechnology that may have
adverse effects on biological diversity, taking also into account potential risks to human health.
To reinforce the legal liability provisions of the Protocol, a supplementary protocol on liability
and redress was negotiated and adopted during the 10th Meeting of Parties held in Nagoya,
Japan in 2010.
In compliance with the provisions of the Protocol, individual party states embarked on the
development of their domestic policy, legal and regulatory frameworks to govern modern
biotechnology. The majority of African states are at various stages of developing their biotechnology
policy and biosafety regulatory frameworks, having benefited from the United Nations Environment
Programme – Global Environment Facility (UN-GEF). Their regulatory frameworks however, have
leaned heavily on the extremely precautionary approach of the Protocol as guided by the African
Model Law (OAU, 2002, currently under review) and drawing from the European approach. Due
to this overly precautionary approach, biotechnology policy legal and regulatory frameworks in
Africa are restrictive to the adoption of the technology. In essence therefore, products of modern
biotechnology are among the most regulated products despite the fact that once a GM plant is
obtained for example, it has to enter the pipeline of classical breeding and selection to obtain a
stable progeny that retains all the fundamental traits of the parent plant.
While most African countries continue to hold on to the extremely precautionary approach,
ostensibly taking cue from Europe, the jury out there is that the European Union has moved
on to re-invent its approach to modern biotechnology development and biosafety regulation.
The EU imports GM soybeans for processing animal feeds from Brazil and Argentina and
therefore it is unwise for Africa to keep shunning modern agricultural biotechnology assuming
to be in line with the EU approach. Indeed, a study published by the Regional Approach to
Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy in Eastern and Southern Africa (RABESA) has demonstrated
that the fear by African states of losing EU export markets after adopting biotechnology is
unfounded (Minde and Kizito, 2007).
The corresponding advice to Africa is to adopt the co-evolutionary approach where consumer
and biodiversity protection goes hand in hand with the development of the technology itself.
This calls for the review and adjustment of national and regional policies together with their
related legislation to provide a conducive environment for the development and application
of agricultural biotechnology. Africa’s biosafety regulatory institutions need transparent and
high quality scientific capacity to assess biotechnology-related risks and to be able to regulate
quickly, safely and effectively. A conducive environment will reduce controversial decisions
Recommendations to Policymakers
11
such as the one that resulted in the ban of GM
food imports in Kenya, the ban of GM maize
cultivation in Egypt and the moratorium on GM
products in Zimbabwe (Text box 4).
Text box 4
Challenges to implementation
of biosafety regulations where
political convenience overrides
scientific evidence: a case of
Egypt and Kenya
In conducting the revision, African governments
are encouraged to lay emphasis on maximising the
benefits associated with modern biotechnology
Egypt was one of the few countries in Africa to
and science based risk assessment to inform
realize
in the 1980s the importance of modern
decision making. Academies of science are a ready
biotechnology in achieving sustainable
source of such science derived risk assessment
agriculture. Capacity building and transfer
for decision making. The case of Sudan is a good
of biotechnology started in the 1990s and in
example of this approach where the country
2008, Egypt approved commercial production
leadership directed the commercial planting
of GM maize. About 700 ha of land were put
of GM cotton (Bt. cotton) on the basis of its
expressed benefits of resistance to the cotton boll
worm. Two other countries, Ethiopia and Tanzania
have embarked on the revision of their domestic legislations to relax previously strict liability
provisions following advice given by their national science academy and the realisation of
potential to curtail a research partnership in the Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA)
project respectively.
At the regional level, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the West
African Economic Community (ECOWAS) and the East African Community (EAC) have initiated
harmonisation of biotechnology policy and biosafety regulation. Harmonised approaches
ensure cost effectiveness, uniform risk assessment, seamless intra-regional trade and help
address the unique informal exchange of commodities across national boundaries. African
governments need to facilitate and actively participate in the process of regional initiatives
towards harmonisation of biotechnology policies and biosafety regulations. This will reduce
the cost of regulation, leverage on synergies and support the growth of regional biotechnology
businesses.
Africa should pursue a dynamic 21st century, home grown biotechnology policy and biosafety
regulatory regime that assures the maximum benefits from modern biotechnology and takes
advantage of the continent’s youthful, well educated population to support the deployment
of the technology and its associated stewardship. Africa’s biosafety regulatory institutions
need high quality scientific capacity for a transparent biotechnology-related risk assessment
to be able to regulate quickly, safely and effectively. This will ensure that Africa does not miss
out on the Gene Revolution in the same way she missed out on the Green Revolution.
Political will
A positive political will and drive is critical to the adoption of agricultural biotechnology in
Africa. The enthusiasm with which African governments ratified the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety and the commitment to the development of their national policies and regulatory
frameworks testifies to their positive will and drive to ensure that Africa is fully integrated
into the global biotechnology enterprise. In spoken and written policy statements, the current
generation of African government leaders have acknowledged the benefits of agricultural
biotechnology and expressed positive sentiments in support of its adoption. The dynamic,
young and well educated African political leaders are a clear contrast to the yesteryear’s
12
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
under Bt maize which increased to 1,700 ha by 2011.
Despite great strides in commercialisation of modern
biotechnology, Egypt does not have official biosafety
legislation, though a regulatory framework exists which
follows the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Assem,
2014). Lack of biosafety law and fluctuation in political
will eventually resulted in the ban(ning) of production of
Bt maize in 2012.
On the other hand, Kenya developed and enacted
a biosafety law in 2009. An authority, the National
Biosafety Authority, was established to supervise and
control transfer, handling and use of GM organisms.
However, in November 2012, Kenya’s cabinet ordered
the ban of GM food imports until the country is able
to certify that genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
have no negative health effects. This was despite the
existence of the biosafety law and the establishment
of the National Biosafety Authority (NBA). In both
Egypt and Kenya, the ban came after the release of
the controversial study (now retracted) by the French
scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini (2012) that linked cancer
in rats to consumption of GM foods. The ban sent
conflicting signals to the scientific community and other
government agencies involved in the regulation of the
use of GMOs, not only in the countries but all over the
continent. This is a case where political convenience
overrides scientific evidence and existing laws governing
use of biotechnology. Such decisions make progress in
the use of technologies difficult to implement.
leaders. For example, Kenya’s deputy president is on record calling for the adoption of modern
agricultural biotechnology to boost productivity and competitiveness. In addition, Kenya’s
National Biotechnology Policy (2006) envisaged the active participation of Kenya in the global
biotechnology enterprise within a decade. In contrast, Zambia’s former president likened GM
food to poison.
Despite these positive policy pronouncements, biosafety regulatory regimes of most African
states remain extremely restrictive to the development and adoption of modern biotechnology
(Wambugu, 2014). For example, Kenya’s regulatory regime has very stringent labeling
requirements and punitive fines in violation of the law, while Ethiopia’s and Tanzania’s regimes
follow the strict liability and redress approach. This has discouraged potential investors and
development partners in research and product development. There is however an awakening
to this hindrance leading to initiatives to review these provisions in most of these countries.
African government leaders are encouraged to match word with deed to ensure that their
expressed desire to engage in the global and even regional biotechnology enterprise becomes
a reality. This will be achieved through a comprehensive review of their biosafety regulatory
regimes. It is interesting to note that the adoption of GM insect resistant Bt. cotton in Burkina
Faso and Sudan was driven by declarations/directives by their presidents after being convinced
of the benefits. The development of regulations has followed.
Safety Concerns and Perceptions
The top most expression of concern over modern biotechnology, and which informed the
negotiation and adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is the environmental
and health safety of the technology. The precautionary principle portends that modern
biotechnology is inherently risky to human and animal health and the conservation of
biodiversity, and hence the tough stance on African Model Law on safety of biotechnology.
Experience over the past two decades with modern biotechnology in agriculture, environment
and health applications, with over 180 million hectares cultivated with GM crops for example,
has proven that modern biotechnology does not present any health or environmental risk.
To the contrary, it has been demonstrated that the technology presents real health and
environmental benefits (Nicolia et al., 2013; Qaim and Kouser, 2013).
Recommendations to Policymakers
13
As early as 1999, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics concluded that “There is a compelling
moral imperative to make genetically modified crops readily available to developing countries
who want them, to help combat world hunger and poverty” and that “…genetic modification
of plants does not differ to such an extent from conventional plant breeding that it is in itself
morally objectionable” (Nuffield Council, 1999). In a follow-up discussion paper the Council reaffirmed the conclusions of the 1999 report and provided guidance on addressing the various
issues pertinent to the application of agricultural biotechnology in developing countries
(Africa) including Intellectual Properties Rights (IPR; Nuffield Council, 2004).
Opinion expressed by the European Commission Research Area – Food, Agriculture and
Fisheries and Biotechnology has put the issue of safety of modern biotechnology to rest,
stating thus: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research
projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500
independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se
more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies” (EU, 2010).
Further advice given to the European Union by the European Academies Science Advisory
Council (EASAC) goes to reinforce the previous one, stating thus: “There is no validated
evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than
any other technology used in plant breeding. There is compelling evidence that GM crops
can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the
environment and the economy” (EASAC, 2013; Text box 5).
The other issue of concern is socio-economic in nature with the argument that modern
biotechnology is a frontage of multinational agribusiness companies with the intention of
dominating the global seed system thereby impoverishing the masses. The argument goes
further to post that modern biotechnology is not beneficial to small scale resource poor
farmers. To reinforce these arguments cases have been cited of increases in farmer suicides in
India following the introduction of GM crops due to frustrations resulting from their inability
to afford GM crop seeds. Formal case studies conducted in India and other parts of the world
(Qaim, 2009; Sadashivappa and Qaim, 2009; Kouser and Qaim, 2013) have however dispelled
these arguments.
Finally and most dear to the African socio-cultural setting (Article 26 of the Protocol), is the
ethical question in which genetic engineering has been equated to playing God by altering
the original creation or even creating new organisms. Although this argument is difficult to
conceptualise from a scientific point of view, it stems from the technology’s ability to overcome
species barriers in exchange of genetic material. It makes sense to a religious adherent for
example whose religious beliefs forbid using some organisms as food and may therefore
consider trans-genes from such organisms to have transferred the taboo. The question is
whether transferring a DNA fragment amounts to transferring the whole organism’s traits.
This fixed mind set can only be overcome by effective public education programmes.
Experience with biotechnology in the last 2 decades has demonstrated its safety for human
health and the environment. Advisories derived from scientific analysis of evidence and
research results by internationally credible institutions confirm that biotechnology and more
specifically GMOs do not present any risk to human health and the environment (Table 2).
African governments should base their decision making whether to adopt biotechnology on
scientific evidence backed by experience from case studies evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Africa should consider adopting specific genetic modifications (traits) that present real benefits
for Africa and roll out public education to debunk myths and counter deliberate distortion of
facts by anti-biotechnology crusaders.
14
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
Table 2. List of impartial institutions that have concluded genetically modified crops are
safe to man and the environment and that the technology poses no inherent risk1
Institution
Country
Year
Nuffield Council on Bioethics
UK
1999
Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development
International
2000
European Research Directorate
European Commission
2001
French Academy of Science
France
2002
French Academy of Medicine
France
2002
Director General, World Health Organization
International
2002
International Council for Science
International
2003
Royal Society
UK
2003
United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization
International
2004
British Medical Association
UK
2004
Union of German Academies of Science & Humanities
Germany
2004
European Commission
EU
2010
European Academies Science Advisory Council
EU
2013
American, Brazilian, Chinese, Indian and Mexican Academies of Science
Several
Various
Key Message
The majority of African countries are parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and a
number have ratified its Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress. Taking cue from
the Protocol, the African Model Law and drawing from the European approach to modern
biotechnology, the governance of modern agricultural biotechnology in Africa is characterised
by an extremely precautionary approach. This has become a major hindrance to the
development and application of modern biotechnology in the continent.
African governments are encouraged to undertake comprehensive reviews of their
biotechnology policy and regulatory frameworks to emphasise (on) the benefits of
the technology and base their decision making on scientific evidence. Further, African
governments are encouraged to play a more proactive and facilitative role in regional
initiatives to harmonise biotechnology policies and biosafety regulation and thus create
an enabling environment for a flourishing biotechnology enterprise in Africa driven by the
specific needs of the continent.
1
Source: Sundström and Fagerström (2014)
Recommendations to Policymakers
15
5
Africa in the Global Modern
Agricultural Biotechnology Enterprise
Background
The global hectarage of GM crops has
increased more than 100-fold from 1.7
million hectares in 1996 to over 175 million
hectares in 2013, making GM crops the fastest
adopted crop technology in recent history
(James, 2013: Text box 5). This adoption
rate is a clear testimony of the technology’s
resilience and the benefits it delivers to
farmers and consumers. Africa continues to
make progress with Burkina Faso and Sudan
increasing their GM insect resistant Bt. cotton
hectarage substantially.
What should be of great concern to African
government and business leaders is the fact
that in international trade, Europe imports
GM products from South Africa, Brazil and
Argentina and a lot of food imports into Africa
including emergency food aid are sourced from
countries growing GM crops. This demonstrates
that the commonly held fear of losing the EU
as an export market if Africa adopts modern
biotechnology is unfounded as confirmed by
the RABESA study (Minde and Kizito, 2007).
Further it presents an opportunity for Africa
to make a saving on imports by becoming self
sufficient in food requirements and enhancing
regional trade by adopting GM technology.
Text box 5
Important facts about modern
agricultural biotechnology
and GM crops (Summarized from
James, 2013)
Fact 1. Production of GM crops has been on
the increase
After 17 years of successful commercialisation of
GM crops, the area under production increased
every year, from 1.7 million hectares in 1996,
to over 175 million hectares in 2013 (Figure
2). This is over 100-fold increase, reflecting the
confidence and trust of millions of farmers around
the world, and making biotech crops the fastest
adopted crop technology in recent times. Such
a high rate of adoption can only occur if the
technology is offering real benefits.
Fact 2. GM crops are grown by smallholder
and large scale farmers in developing and
developed countries
A total of 28 countries planted biotech crops in
2014, 19 of which were developing and 9 were
developed countries. Developing countries had
54% of total global land under biotech crops
Several African countries (Uganda, Kenya, Ghana, and Nigeria) have been conducting confined
field trials on various GM crops for far too long without moving to the commercialisation
stage (Bailey et al., 2014). They have therefore remained at the periphery of the global
biotechnology enterprise. There is an urgent need and farmer demands to move these crops
to commercialisation since the trials have demonstrated their potential to positively impact on
the continent’s macro- and micro-economics. The potential for enhanced cotton production
through the use of GM insect resistant Bt. cotton will position Africa to reap maximum benefit
from the provisions of the Africa Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA) of the United States of
America.
The first generation GM crops targeted herbicide tolerance, which was not seen as beneficial
to Africa. The situation has since changed with a focus on crops and traits of great relevance
to Africa including nutrient bio-fortification, drought and insect tolerance and overcoming the
aflatoxin problems in storage. In this emerging sector, China has become a key player in the
16
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
compared to 46% industrialised countries, indicating that
the technology has been adopted by both smallholder
and large scale farmers in all parts of the world.
Fact 3. Some African and European Union countries
are also growing GM crops
In African, South Africa has grown biotech crops
for more than a decade. Burkina Faso and Sudan
increased the land under Bt cotton by 50% and 300%,
respectively, in 2013. Seven countries (Cameroon,
Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Uganda) are
conducting field trials, the final stages towards approval
for commercialisation. Five EU countries increased Bt
maize production by 15% from 2012, Spain increased
their hectares of Bt maize by 18% from 2012 with a
record 31% adoption rate in 2013.
Figure 2. Global adoption of GM crops in the world over the last 18 years of production (James, 2014)
provision of seeds in partnership with local seed associations and public institutions. This kind
of partnership is important in addressing Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and demands of
other international trade standards such as CODEX.
Despite the demonstrated safety and potential for agricultural biotechnology, Egypt has
since 2012 suspended the cultivation of GM maize after health concerns were raised in
response to the controversial publication by Selarini et al. (2012). Kenya also responded to
the publication in the same fashion as Egypt by banning importation of GM foods. Further,
agricultural biotechnology has been highlighted among technologies with a great potential
for ensuring food security in a world of natural resource scarcity (Rosegrant et al., 2014).
With the production of nutritionally enhanced foods and by improving yield and quality traits,
agricultural biotechnology is a pathway out of food shortages, malnutrition and poverty.
Recommendations to Policymakers
17
Key Messages
The global biotechnology enterprise has been expanding exponentially in the last two decades
with Africa remaining hesitant to delve into the commercial production of GM crops despite
having conducted long term confined field trials on several GM crops and also having developed
biotechnology policies and biosafety regulatory frameworks. Africa is endowed with a sizable
youthful and well educated population that can be harnessed to support the deployment of
modern biotechnology and its associated management stewardship.
African governments and regional economic communities are encouraged to create a
conducive environment that will facilitate the development and application of agricultural
biotechnology. Emphasis should be placed on maximising the socio-economic benefits
associated with modern biotechnology and embrace science based advice to inform decision
making.
18
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
Capacity for Biotechnology Research,
Product Development and Deployment
6
Background
African governments have developed robust science and technology policies that are geared
towards the transformation of their economies into knowledge driven economies. Collectively
African governments, under the AU have launched specific initiatives to position the continent
in the global knowledge economy through science, technology and innovation generally and
biotechnology specifically. As a result, Africa’s contribution to the global knowledge index
through innovations and patents has seen a steady increase. The limiting factor to the full
realisation of Africa’s potential in this sector is low capacity for knowledge (IPR) management
and application including royalty negotiations, brokerage and stewardship. This is clearly a
need which the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) is addressing.
Discussions on IPR in Africa relate only tangentially to biotechnology but affect innovation
and scientific progress in general. The dialogue covers a tangled array of issues involving
ethical concerns about the “patenting of life,” concerns about monopolistic controls on food
supplies, and the role of indigenous people as protectors of agricultural biodiversity. Overall,
there is a need for much educa­tion and training on this topic at senior political levels, as well
as at the level of practitioners.
Inadequate infrastructure, human and institutional capacities for agricultural biotechnology
research and product development are a long standing obstacle to Africa’s desire of
becoming a key participant in the global biotechnology enterprise (Plate 3). The ability of
African countries to effectively use existing and emerging biotechnologies depends largely
on the level of investment in building physical, human and institutional capacities. An
incredible resource
in
biotechnology
tools for application
in various processes
and gene technology
procedures, including
an ever expanding
and rich gene (DNA)
sequence database
(gene bank) of most
of Africa’s valued
crop varieties is at the
continent’s disposal.
To tap into these
resources,
African
governments
must
invest in building
their national and
Plate 3. Biosafety level 2 greenhouse facility at Kenya Agricultural and Livestock
regional
capacities
Research Organization (KALRO), Kenya. African governments should invest
resources in infrastructural development of such facilities to enhance
for Bio-informatics.
research in modern biotechnology.
Recommendations to Policymakers
19
More specifically, Africa needs to focus on creating and reforming existing knowledge-based
institutions, especially universities and national science academies, to serve as centres of new
technology diffusion into the economy. This will entail fundamental reforms in higher technical
training for economic development by bringing research, teaching and community outreach
together to support biotechnology development goals. To address the “software” component
of the training, there is a need to develop a comprehensive continental biotechnology
curriculum for all levels of education, focusing on specific areas that offer high economic
returns for the continent.
To enhance biotechnology product development, commercialisation and business capacity,
African governments need to foster Research and Development (R&D) cooperative partnerships
at the local, regional and international levels. Opportunities for these partnerships have
expanded greatly with the announcement of various R&D partnerships between Europe
and Africa. Further, African governments need to substantially increase their national
biotechnology R&D budgets and explore additional special funding mechanisms including
public-private partnerships (PPPs). Burkina Faso, China and India present good examples of
working PPPs in biotechnology development through commercial production of GM crops.
Private sector players and development partners are in an advantage position to help
African governments in building the capacity of national agriculture research systems for
biotechnology research, product development and deployment. On the other hand the
governments are in a position to provide a favorable policy and regulatory environment for
the expansion of the biotechnology industry. This will ensure that biotechnology graduates
from higher learning institutions are readily absorbed into industry and that domestic human
resource in biotechnology is retained and enhanced.
There is great potential in developing North-South and South-South collaborations supporting
biotechnology R&D and capacity-building in Africa. Individual countries need to identify
ways of enhancing such collaborations with other regions of the world to effectively address
issues pertaining to biotechnology. In addition to facilitating North-South and SouthSouth collaborations, African countries need to mobilise the expertise in the Diaspora for
development and make maximum use of ABNE, which is a programme under the AU-NEPAD,
wholly dedicated to building African’s capacity for biotechnology development and biosafety
regulation.
Financing
Capacity building through the entire spectrum (“value chain”) of biotechnology product
development and commercialisation is resource intensive, requiring large financial
commitments. In this regard, financing the process requires a concerted effort by all the actors
and stakeholders in the process through well co-ordinated partnerships and collaborations.
In this array of partnerships, national governments are expected to play a central role of
coordination and regulation.
Through the Lagos Plan of Action and the Maputo Declaration that recommend the allocation of
1 and 10 percent of their national GDP to science and technology and agriculture respectively,
African government leaders laid the foundation for the financing of agricultural biotechnology,
as a scientific intervention in agriculture. The next logical step is for the African governments
to provide budgetary allocations to agricultural biotechnology development considering that
it is covered by the two provisions of 1 and 10% GDP.
20
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
In working out the financing of agricultural biotechnology product development and
commercialisation, governments, development partners, civil society, the private sector and
other relevant stakeholders are encouraged to focus on the entire spectrum or value chain
composed of the following components:
• Research for proof of concept;
• Product development for innovations;
• Regulation for effective, efficient and quick process;
• Risk assessment, communication and management;
• Management of IPR issues;
• Technology stewardship;
• Communication and public engagement.
Key Message
Agricultural biotechnology has great potential to contribute real socio-economic benefits to
the African continent given that it has been demonstrated to have great need for enhanced
agricultural productivity. Africa is uniquely exposed to food and nutrition insecurity, impacts
of climate change, declining availability of arable land, rising salinity and declining soil fertility
and in general decline in agricultural productivity owing to numerous biotic and abiotic
constraints, all of which can be addressed through the application of modern biotechnology.
The low infrastructure, human and institutional capacities for agricultural biotechnology
research, product development and deployment are huge and long standing obstacles to
Africa’s desire of becoming a key participant in the global biotechnology enterprise and the
knowledge based economy.
African governments are encouraged to enhance their investment in the development and
application of agricultural biotechnology as part of their commitments expressed in the Lagos
Plan of Action and the Maputo Declaration. The governments are also encouraged to pursue
collaborative research programmes within the South-South and North-South framework and
facilitate the effective utilisation of the continent’s expertise in the Diaspora. This can be
achieved through effective partnerships with the private sector, development partners and
civil society actors who are working towards delivering agricultural biotechnology benefits to
the people of Africa.
Recommendations to Policymakers
21
7
Public awareness and
Communication
Background
Quite often, public awareness of new technologies involves scientists and government officials
informing members of the public about the technologies that are good for them without
expecting to be challenged. This one-way mode of communication assumes that if members
of the public possessed additional knowledge of a science or technology, then this would lead
to readier acceptance of new technologies. On the contrary, technology acceptance is not
linear and the public can reject new technologies for what scientists and public officials may
consider to be irrational reasons.
A dedicated strategy for communication, public awareness and participation in engagements
with modern biotechnology is critical to the full roll-out of the technology for application
in commercial and subsistence production systems in Africa. This is in consideration of the
controversy generated by public debates on the merits and demerits of the technology and
the need for a coordinated approach on the key components of the strategy (target audiences,
messages, carriers, etc). Further, this endeavor must be well coordinated and sufficiently funded
since it is a very financially demanding engagement. As the global governance instrument for
modern biotechnology, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Article 20 and 23) provides for a
global information sharing mechanism through the Biosafety Clearing House (BCH) as well as
public awareness and participation respectively. Most African governments have incorporated
these provisions in their biosafety regulatory frameworks and are active in the BCH.
Public acceptance of new technologies needs rigorous and credible regulation in which the
public has confidence that their interests and safety are paramount and that the opinions
and concerns of non-scientists are considered. These require a genuine partnership between
society stakeholders including members of the lay public, professional societies, industry,
voluntary associations, young people’s and women’s groups, faith communities, policymakers,
and elected representatives of local and national legislatures. Such partnerships need open
dialogue on the benefits and risks of new technologies, evidence-based decision-making and
equitable access to information for all. The media and academies of science are important
partners with government in the generation and dissemination of targeted information for
advocacy, overcoming misinformation and winning political will.
Science communication has become a key element in technology development and the
classical approaches that relied on one-way flows of information from scientists to the general
public through a variety of media are being replaced by participatory approaches involving a
diversity of sources of information and perspectives. In this whole mix, the media becomes an
important channel for science communication. In this regard, media training in science writing,
including media away-days to biotechnology labs could all be used in efforts to promote good
practice in the press. The Burkina Faso experience of a partnership between researchers and
the media is a good model from which other African governments can learn.
Generally, there is low public awareness and participation on matters of biotechnology globally
and especially in Africa. A study published in 2005 by the Public Understanding of Biotechnology
(PUB) project of the South African Agency of Science and Technology Advancement (SAASTA),
found that 80% of the 7000 respondents had no idea what the word biotechnology meant
22
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
(HRC, 2005). African countries are encouraged to learn from their counterparts who are
growing GM crops through the establishment of communities of practice that bring together
neighbouring countries. For example, countries in southern Africa can learn from South Africa,
those in West Africa can learn from Burkina Faso as those in eastern Africa take lessons from
Sudan.
Public awareness and engagement in biotechnology is needed at all levels in Africa. A lack of
both creates room for deliberate distortion of facts, non-scientific basis of risk perception and
makes it difficult for African countries to individually and collectively discuss, set priorities
and exploit economic and other opportunities offered by biotechnology. New stakeholder
partnerships, awareness campaigns, and innovation competitions need to be created to
facilitate public awareness and education on issues of biotechnology. An excellent example of
training facilitation in communication is the just concluded Biosciences for Farming in Africa
(B4FA) media fellowship programme that was supported by the Templeton Foundation.
In financing communication, public awareness and participation, African governments
and advocacy organisations that support the development and deployment of agricultural
biotechnology should be conscious of the fact that it is a resource intensive long term
engagement and that anti-biotechnology lobby groups are well funded. The business motive
of these anti-technology groups and the way they make a living out of their crusades has
indeed been demonstrated (Sundström and Fagerström, 2014).
Key Message
Generally, public awareness and participation on matters of modern biotechnology, particularly
the genetic modification of organisms (GMO) is very low worldwide. In Africa the technology
is perceived to be foreign/alien, further creating the opportunity for deliberate distortion of
facts and non-scientific basis of risk perception. This has made it difficult for African countries
to individually and collectively discuss, set priorities and exploit economic and other benefits
offered by biotechnology.
African governments, as parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, have committed to
the provisions of Article 23 of the Protocol on Public Awareness and Participation. To fulfill this
commitment, African governments are encouraged to partner with the media, civil society
and other relevant stakeholders to enhance domestic capacity for public communication,
education and participation. The governments can use the experiences of resource poor
farmers in African countries that have adopted modern biotechnology as learning points for
public education and awareness programmes.
Recommendations to Policymakers
23
8
Conclusions and Way Forward
Modern agricultural biotechnology holds the promise of delivering real benefits to the people
and economy of Africa. The greatest hindrance to the development, adoption and deployment
of the technology in Africa is the prevailing unfavorable biotechnology development policy
environment and an extremely precautionary biosafety regulatory regime. This is coupled
with insufficient human, infrastructure and institutional capacity for biotechnology product
development and biosafety regulation.
As a way forward therefore, African governments:
1. Need to re-think biotechnology development policy and biosafety regulatory regime
to create an enabling political environment for the development, adoption and
deployment of modern agricultural biotechnology. To achieve this, the continent will
have to embrace evidence based decision making by harnessing the technical capacity
of the rich network of African academies of science as a source of credible evidence
based advice to policy.
2. Should support and fully participate in the on-going regional (COMESA, ECOWAS,
EAC and SADC) initiatives towards the harmonisation of biotechnology development
policies and biosafety regulations to ensure that Africa becomes a key participant in the
global biotechnology enterprise.
3. Should enhance the level of public awareness, education, and engagement in matters
of biotechnology development and biosafety regulations in Africa. This will eliminate
deliberate distortion of facts, non-scientific basis of risk perception and makes it easy
for Africa to exploit economic and other opportunities offered by modern agricultural
biotechnology.
4. Must invest in building human, infrastructure and institutional capacity for
biotechnology development and biosafety regulation by allocating financial resources
and leveraging on global partnerships and collaborations within the South-South and
North-South frameworks. As a starting point, Africa should position herself to reap
maximum benefit from the current collaborative initiatives with developed countries
for Science, Technology and Innovation (ST&I) in general and modern agricultural
biotechnology research in particular. To this end, NASAC is uniquely positioned as a
strong base for partnerships with governments on matters of science and should take
the lead in initiating dialogue with African government leaders on matters of science
and technology generally and modern biotechnology specifically.
24
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
References
9
Assem S.K. (2014) Opportunities and challenges of commercializing biotech products in Egypt: Bt maize: A
case study. In Biotechnology in Africa (Edited by F. Wambugu and D. Kamanga). Science Policy Reports
7, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-04001-1_3
Bailey R., Willoughby R. and Grzywacz D. (2014) On trial: Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa. Energy,
Environment and Resources, July 2014.
Chambers J.A., Zambrano P., Falck-Zepeda J., Gruère G., Sengupta D. and Hokanson K. (2014) GM
Technologies for Africa: A state of affairs. International Food Policy Research Institute and African
Development Bank. Washington, USA.
European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) (2013) Planting the future: Opportunities and
challenges for using crop genetic improvement technologies for sustainable agriculture. Policy Report
21. DVZ-Daten-Service GmbH, Halle/Saale, Germany. ISBN: 978-3-8047-3181-3.
European Union (2010) A decade of EU-Funded GMO Research 2001–2010. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union, 2010.
Ferreira S.A. (1998) Papaya ringspot virus in non-transgenic papaya and transgenic virus-resistant
papaya [photograph], American Phythopathological Society, Available from: http://www.apsnet.
org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/Papaya.aspx [Accessed 26 March 2015] HSRC client survey
(2004) Report to Public Understanding of Biotechnology – 16 February 2005.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2015) Codex Alimentarius – International Food
Standards. [Online], Available from: http://www.codexalimentarius.org [Accessed 30 March 2015].
ISAAA (2013) Report on global status of biotech/GM crops. ISAA Brief 46-2013.
James C. (2013) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM crops: 2013. ISAAA Brief No. 46. ISAAA
Ithaca, NY.
James C. (2014) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM crops: 2013. ISAAA Brief No. 46. ISAAA
Ithaca, NY.
Juma C. and Serageldin I. (Lead Authors) (2007) Freedom to Innovate: Biotechnology in Africa’s
Development’. A Report of High-Level African Panel on Modern Biotechnology. African Union (AU)
and Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). Addis Ababa and Pretoria.
Kathage J. and Qaim M. (2012) Economic Impacts and Impact Dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis)
Cotton in India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109 (29): 11652–11656.
Kouser S. and Qaim M. (2011) Impact of Bt Cotton on Pesticide Poisoning in Smallholder Agriculture: A
Panel Data Analysis. Ecological Economics 70 (11): 2105–2113
Kouser S. and Qaim M. (2013) Valuing Financial, Health, and Environmental Benefits of Bt Cotton in
Pakistan. Agricultural Economics 44 (3): 323–335.
Krishna V.V. and Qaim M. (2012) Bt Cotton and Sustainability of Pesticide Reductions in India. Agricultural
Systems 107 (1): 47–55.
Minde I.J. and Kizito M. (2007) The Economics of Biotechnology (GMOs) and the Need for a Regional
Policy: The Case for COMESA Countries. AAAE Conference Proceedings (2007) 377–381.
Morris E.J. and Thomson J.A. (2014) Genetically modified crops commercialized in South Africa. In
Biotechnology in Africa (Edited by F. Wambugu and D. Kamanga). Science Policy Reports 7, DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-04001-1_3
Nicolia A., Manzo A., Veronesi F. and Rosellini D. (2013) An overview of the last 10 years of genetically
engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews of Biotechnology, Early Online 1-12. DOI:
10.3109/07388551.2013.823595.
Recommendations to Policymakers
25
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1999) Genetically modified crops: the ethical and social issues. London.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2004) Genetically modified crops in developing countries: A follow-up
discussion paper. London.
OAU (2002) African Model Law on Safety in Biotechnology. OAU, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Qaim M. (2014) Economic and Social Impacts of GM Crops: A Global Overview. NASAC/EASAC Workshop
on “Promoting Agricultural Biotechnology for Sustainable Development in Africa”, Addis Ababa, 25–26
February 2014. Power point presentation.
Qaim M. (2009) The economics of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of Resource Economics 1:
665–693. doi: 10.1146/annurev.resource.050708.144203.
Qaim M. and Kouser S. (2013) Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security. PLoS ONE 8(6): e64879.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064879.
Qaim M. and Traxler G. (2005) Roundup Ready Soybeans in Argentina: Farm Level and Aggregate Welfare
Effects. Agricultural Economics 32 (1): 73–86.
Qaim M., Subramanian A. and Sadashivappa P. (2009) Commercialized GM Crops and Yield. Nature
Biotechnology 27 (9): 803–804.
Rosegrant M.W., Koo J., Cenacchi N., Ringler C., Robertson R., Fisher M., Cox C., Garrett K., Perez N.D.
and Sabbagh P. (2014) Food security in a world of natural resource scarcity: The role of agricultural
technologies. International Food Policy Research Institute.
Sadashivappa P. and Qaim M. (2009) Bt Cotton in India: Development of Benefits and the Role of
Government Seed Price Interventions. AgBioForum 12 (2): 172–183.
Sasson A (2008) Agricultural biotechnology applications in Africa. In: Taeb, M.; Zakri, A. H. (eds.) Agriculture,
human security and peace. A crossroad in African development, pp. 157-187. Purdue University Press.
West Lafayette, Indiana.
Séralini G-E., Clair E., Mesnage R., Gress S., Defarge N., Malatesta M., Hennequin D. and De Vendômois
J.S. (2012) Long term toxicity of a roundup herbicide and a roundup-tolerant genetically modified
maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005.
Subramanian A. and Qaim M. (2010) The Impact of Bt Cotton on Poor Households in Rural India. Journal
of Development Studies 46 (2): 295–311.
Sundström J. and Fagerström T. (2014) The Warped World of Parallel Science. The Wall Street Journal.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014.
Traore H., Hema S.A.O. and Traore K. (2014) Bt cotton in Burkina Faso demonstrates that political will is
key for biotechnology to benefit commercial agriculture in Africa. In Biotechnology in Africa (Edited by
F. Wambugu and D. Kamanga). Science Policy Reports 7, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-04001-1_3
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) (2002) Report of the first expert group meeting
on Biotechnology for Africa’s Sustainable Development. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
United Nations (2002) Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). New York.
Wambugu F.M. (2014) The importance of political will in contributions of Agricultural biotechnology
towards economic growth, food and nutritional security in Africa. In: Biotechnology in Africa (Edited
by F. Wambugu and D. Kamanga). Science Policy Reports 7, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-04001-1_3.
26
Harnessing Modern Agricultural Biotechnology for Africa’s Economic Development
The Network of African Science Academies
(NASAC) was established on 13th December
2001 in Nairobi, Kenya, under the auspices of
the African Academy of Sciences (AAS) and
the InterAcademy Panel (IAP).
NASAC is a consortium of merit-based science
academies in Africa and aspires to make
the “voice of science” heard by policy and
decision makers within Africa and worldwide.
NASAC is dedicated to enhancing the capacity
of existing national science academies and
champions the cause for creation of new
academies where none exist.
As at December 2014, NASAC comprised of the following twenty-one members:
African Academy of Sciences (AAS)
Académie Nationale des Sciences, Arts et Lettres du Benin (ANSALB)
Académie Nationale des Sciences du Burkina (ANSB)
Cameroon Academy of Sciences (CAS)
Académie Nationale des Sciences et Technologies du Congo, Brazzaville (ANSTC)
Ethiopian Academy of Sciences (EAS)
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences (GAAS)
Kenya National Academy of Sciences (KNAS)
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology (MAST)
Hassan II Academy of Science and Technology, Morocco
Academy of Sciences of Mozambique (ASM)
Nigerian Academy of Science (NAS)
Académie Nationale des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal (ANSTS)
Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf)
Sudanese National Academy of Sciences (SNAS)
Tanzania Academy of Sciences (TAAS)
Académie Nationale des Sciences, Arts et Lettres du Togo (ANSALT)
Uganda National Academy of Sciences (UNAS)
Zambia Academy of Sciences (ZaAS)
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences (ZAS)
For more information, please visit www.nasaconline.org
or contact The NASAC Secretariat on:
P.O. Box 201-00502 Karen, Nairobi, Kenya or
email address: [email protected]
This document was developed with the support from: